In the material I'm going over there's a "standard fact" about sequences: $$a_n>0, \lim\limits_{n \to \infty}{a_{n+1} \over a_n} = q \implies \sqrt[n]{a_n}=q$$ Now, once we consider series, the d'Alambert ratio test states: $a_n>0, {a_{n+1} \over a_n} \to q < 1 \implies \sum a_n$ converges.
The Cauchy criterion postulates: $\sqrt[n]{a_n} \to q \implies \sum a_n$ converges.
Now, I've come across a statement that the satisfaction of the Cauchy criterion Cauchy is stronger than d'Alambert. The statement I've seen about Cauchy being stronger that d'Alambert was $$\sqrt[n]{a_n}\to q \implies {a_{n+1} \over a_n} \to q \qquad (1)$$
Two questions here:
- Is the original "standard fact" not only an implication but actually an equivalence?
- Is $(1)$ plain wrong? If we assume $(1)$ is correct and take $\sqrt[n]{a_n} \to 2$, the series converges by Cauchy but diverges by the ratio test. How do we reconcile this?
I've seen several expositions comparing the root and ratio test so far. None of them has clarified the matter.